Political/Military Analyst (4:51)

And what we saw in the first Trump administration was Secretary Mark Esper, Secretary of Defense Esper, step up and speak clearly and in a way that is consistent with our law about illegal orders, orders that he believed to be illegal. And he stood up to those orders. And that's. So if, if we ask, is there a legitimate concern here about whether the President of the United States may issue illegal orders to American troops on American soil? We have to only look at the record.

Mike Pesca (5:24)

Again, domestic use of force. As Mark Esper held the line with using force against protesters, this was entirely unconvincing to me, and I was confused because why would you end with don't give up the ship if your real message is National Guard members should not deploy or follow orders when deployed? However, in the intervening days, we found out that there is evidence that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered a subsequent strike on a vessel that was already struck and that included a couple of crew of of that vessel clinging to wreckage and just killing members of an already destroyed ship. There is only one way that I could see that that is not a war crime, and that is if you take the first action, the destruction of the ship initially as not a legitimate act of war, then it's just murder. So if the senators, if the congressman had either waited for the video or tied the video directly to to this newly surfaced anonymous report about about Pete Hegseth violating the laws of war, then I would have said, well, since that's what we're talking about, it definitely seems that the senators, the congressmen, the former service members, the former CIA agents were in fact in the right. And of course, Donald Trump, with his death and sedition talk, is, as always, in the wrong on the show today. Well, speaking of death and wrong, but also fascinating characters, Evan Michael D. Fuller. He is the showrunner of a new Hulu series. All of the episodes are out now. It's called Murdoch Death in the Family. A very good conversation takes up the full program today. MICHAEL D. Fuller, Murdoch Death in the Family up next, Quince. Ah, Quince. The mornings get cold, the holidays come around. You have to worry about what you wear to work. You also have to worry about what you give to those you love so that they're warm and cozy and maybe ensconced in cashmere or an Italian wool coat. Quince Quince pieces are crafted from premium material and built to hold up without all the folderol of the luxury market and the markups that they instill. It makes the essentials every guy needs a Mongolian sweater for. I don't even want to say it. You're not going to play $50 Italian wool coats that look great and feel, designer denim chinos that fit just right. Yes, they cut out the middleman. And that's a bit of a cliche, but did I mention the $50 Mongolian cashmere sweater? It really works. There aren't sophisticated, unknown, heretofore unknown methods to take excellent clothing and give it to you at a cheap price, an affordable price. The answer is that middleman must go. But while he goes, maybe he will go down the street in a down jacket or a wool topcoat because he, too can avail himself of Quince having been cut out. He might need the savings. The down jacket I picked up from Quince is getting me through this cold weather. It is warm, it is structured. Get your wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with Quince. Don't wait. Go to quince.com/the gist for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q U I n c e.com/the gist free shipping and 365 day returns quince.com the gist my mom and dad live close to me and they have a nice counter. But you know what would improve it? A Cove Pure. You don't need to hook it up through the plumbing and the taps. You just pour the water into the COVID pure and it makes the water pure. It lets you choose the temperature of your water. Hot, cold or warm. It has size presets 6 ounce 8 ounce 16 ounce. Walk away and you know it'll hit that mark. And here's the most important thing for mom and dad. The water tastes very very good. Guess what? Cove Pure tastes Pure clean, no aftertaste. Why they filter out those little TDSs, the total dissolved solids. Do they even dissolve all the way? It doesn't matter because when Cove Pure purifies your water they go from hundreds says it right there on screen to 500 something TDS is to 9 11. It's pretty amazing. I find it a lot of fun to fill the COVID Pure and this is why. Oh don't tell them but I might be giving a Cove Pure to mom and dad for the holidays. CO Pure is lab certified to remove up to 99.9% of contaminants from your water. Which contaminants? PFAs, pharmaceuticals, fluoride, lead, arsenic, the purest water you can get. So if you're looking for a gift that's good for you and your loved ones, the one that they'll actually use, I highly recommend Cove Pure. And because I have partnered with them, they're giving you a special $250 holiday discount with my link cove pure.com/the gist that C O V E p u r e.com/the gist to get $250 off covpure.com/the gist hurry before the sale ends. The new Hulu series, of which all eight episodes are out, is called Murdoch Death in the Family and you will be able to infer from the title. It is about the South Carolina murders where the convicted party Is the father of the family, Alec or Alex Murdoch. The director of this series himself, a South Carolinian, Michael D. Fuller, joins me now. Welcome to the gist.

Michael D. Fuller (11:39)

Hey, thanks, Mike. Thanks for having me. And just to clarify, I'm the, I'm the showrunner of the show. We had a wonderful team of directors and, you know, so as the, you know, head writer, producer and all those things, but we had a wonderful team of directors that, that I was able to work and collaborate with. But yeah, it's good, it's good to be here with you, man.

Mike Pesca (11:54)

Right. I always do that. Whenever there is a series, I just go right to whoever was the main auteur. I call them the director. I' been trained to do that in movies. But it's different with series. Although these are. The episodes are all about 42 minutes long. I mean, this is a long series. I don't mean it's a slog. I mean it's in depth. You don't, I don't think you gloss over any important aspects of the story. Was that important to you to be very in depth, factual and expansive?

Michael D. Fuller (12:28)

Yes, absolutely. I think, you know, this, one of the reasons I think this particular story has caught on to the extent it has and, you know, kind of captured the zeitgeist in the way it has, is because it is so sprawling and because it is so complex and there are so many layers and so many players in it. And I think, you know, so it was important for us. It's actually like we, it was, it was an exercise in streamlining and, you know, condensing because we only had eight episodes. You know, there's a version of this story that covers four seasons and 32 episodes because it goes back, you know, the Murdoch name and legacy goes back 100 years. And so, you know, you've got a lot to draw on. And then just in the present day story that we're telling that culminates tragically in the, in the murders themselves, you know, there's so many moving pieces and parts, but so it was really, it was important to us to be as robust and as comprehensive as we could be in the telling of this. Because I think that's, you know, both part of the appeal of it, but it's part of also dramatizing how all of this could happen in the first place.

Mike Pesca (13:31)

But there are also challenges in that there are elements to the story because it's real life that don't adhere as, you know, to the beats of storytelling. For instance, there were parts of Alex misdeeds that include the use of funds after the death of his long. The family's longtime housekeeper, Gloria Satterfield. But I was just thinking, if you were to, if one were to construct a big Southern Gothic with similar themes and great actors, you probably wouldn't have that as a plot element. Right? You wouldn't have that kind of. It's a little. It does fit into the motivations for Murdoch killing a bunch of other people, that he was involved in all this fraud. But it wouldn't be. You tell me, if someone pitched that in a fictional writer's room, wouldn't you say that's odd, that's off the beaten path. That doesn't exactly fit in with the clean streamline what we're trying to tell here.

Michael D. Fuller (14:33)

You know, and I think that I. Yes, I think there's a, you know, it's certainly, it's, it's. There's very much an out of left field quality to it, but I think that's one of the things that is both, you know, so captivating about this as someone who was following the story before I was involved in adapting it. And, and, and also, you know, I think it's, it's unexpected and you're just. Purely storytelling wise, it's unexpected, but then also, you know, it's one of those things where it's like any good twist. And now just strictly speaking in creative terms, like any good twist, it's both completely unexpected and then also, in retrospect, totally organic and makes total sense. So I think, you know, in that regard, you know, in that. And the Gloria storyline was also one where, you know, we're showing him sort of with his clients. We were dramatizing over the course of the series. We're seeing, you know, pops here of him, you know, doing something illicit with the funds that he's securing for other people in these lawsuits. But then that's someone who is, you know, for all intents and purposes, family themselves. And so for him to do that, something so craven with someone who he's so close to and has been such an important, vital cog in this, in this family dynamic for years, it's like, okay, there's, there's, there's something else going on beyond this man, just, you know, stealing money from clients and agreed that is. Is not something we're accustomed to. So I think in that sense it's, you know, again, it's like it is, it feels surprising and I think that's what is so captivating about it.

Mike Pesca (16:01)

Yeah. And so I assume that my audience knows the broad contours of the story that this very rich, plugged in influential, politically influential South Carolina man who was important figure in his family, if not the paterfamilias, killed his son, was convicted of killing his son and wife. And he was also addicted to pills and did it for financial reasons and house of cards coming down. But just in terms of this one side note, what makes it unusual from a storytelling perspective is his longtime housekeeper dies and she dies of. She, she slips and falls. But he didn't kill her. He didn't arrange to have her killed. So that would be sort of in a writer's room. They're probably be playing with the possibility of that. That's point one. And point two is what that does is he manipulates things to essentially steal the insurance money from her sons. And I think that it is very. It must be very interesting to you to take the exact actual circumstances and find a way to present them to the audience that fits in with your theme but also doesn't confuse them.

Michael D. Fuller (17:12)

Yeah, no, it's. I mean, it's definitely. It's a creative challenge and I think that's. But in a good way. And I think, you know, it's a, it was, it was a complex scheme that he pulled off and it was also, in its own way, there was a, you know, not, not this, I don't mean this complimentary, but there was sort of a simple brilliance to it, you know, and, and, and then he also took advantage of the fact that, you know, that, that Gloria's sons were, you know, were, you know, from a blue collar background and that they trusted him as this authority figure who they viewed enough like family to have the entire Murdoch family listed as glorious family members in the funeral program. So, you know, I think it's like those human connections and yeah, it's like how can we dramatize that in a way and navigate that so that it's accessible to an audience without feeling confusing. And, you know, that was certainly the financial crimes themselves were, you know, that was one of the things in the writers room where we were really, you know, we had weeks of just like talking through all of them, all of the. What we knew from the research of what all was going on. And then how do we then dramatize that? And we had different variations we explored of, you know, do we do, you know, some big, you know, Wolf of Wall street type montage or do we keep it simple? We were, we were, we were trying on a bunch of different fits, as it were, and you know, what we ultimately landed on was simpler, was better, and keeping it focused was better, and. And that's what we. That's what we ended up doing. But it really was, you know, it's, It's. It's a unique thing that he did there, both emotionally and practically. And so that's, you know, kind of threading those needles was. Was one of the trickier adaptation challenges.

Mike Pesca (18:55)

Right. You do have a reporter character, so that helps with exposition, but you can't use Margo, Margot Robbie in a bathtub. That's been used in other movies.

Michael D. Fuller (19:04)

Exactly. That was used.

Mike Pesca (19:05)

But an interesting thing with that, with this particular incident, I don't know why I'm focusing on it. It's just. What came to mind is that the two sons are entirely sympathetic figures. And I would say that Maggie, probably brought alive by Patricia Arquette and your team's writing and everything that goes into telling a story, she does come off as sympathetic and victimized. But the son Paul isn't necessarily in that category. Not that anyone deserves to die, even someone who was drunk boating. But I do think, and I'm sure you thought that there was something that this series could do, and this was build Paul a sort of redemption arc to the point where when he is killed, the viewer probably should come away saying this is a tragedy, not just because murder is wrong and the father was an immoral guy. But you really come to feel for Paul in a way that, I don't know that any of the other true crime narratives even try to put together. Would you say that that was a thing you were trying to do?

Michael D. Fuller (20:16)

It was absolutely an aim of ours, I think, you know, we. We certainly Paul, real Paul was. Was responsible for, you know, just a horrific tragedy in terms of the boat crash. And that was, you know, something that, you know, we didn't want to. We didn't want to sugarcoat or whitewash or excuse in any way, shape or form. And obviously we're just. We're just going off of our interpretation of events and our understanding of things based on research. But a lot of that research illuminated, you know, what was ultimately what felt like a very human complexity to this young man who was, you know, both someone who so many people would say was, you know, the. The funniest and sweetest kid and dude they. They knew or friend they had and, and, and. And then the. The thing that ultimately would come back to was unless he was drinking. And it seemed as though it was not to us to diagnose someone from afar and especially post mortem, but it certainly seemed in our interpretation of it. And what we were drawing on was the language of addiction and someone who was not necessarily given the support that they would have needed to navigate that, especially at such a young age. And I think there were a couple of details in the research that stuck out to us. One is. And, you know, we made our own connections on it in terms of the show through Mandy and her, you know, incredible work and team and connections to people involved. But is, you know, Anthony Cook himself, whose girlfriend Mallory was the one who, you know, died, was tragically killed in the boat crash. But even he speaks with an affinity and an affection still for his friend. There's anger there. There's righteous anger and understandable anger. And, you know, there was. But there was still. And some of that speaks to just Anthony's character, you know, which is incredible. But, you know, there was. There was also the. The. What we found out, the detail that when Paul was killed, he. When he was, you know, driving around in his truck, he still had. He had clipped out and had. And we dramatized this in the show, Mallory's obituary in his truck. And. And I. For us, that just showed there was a, you know, there was. There was a level of. And just hearing that there was a level of guilt and remorse, as there should be. But I think, you know, there was. There was sort of this, you know, for whatever he. He did, which was. And again, not in any way, shape or form to excuse that. But, you know, he was also a human being and he was also a kid. You know, I think that was when it was all said and done. And. And he. And there were indications that he absolutely, you know, was. Was trying to figure out who and what he was in the world. Would he have done that? We don't. We don't know. And unfortunately, and, you know, sadly, he didn't get the chance to find out. And I think that's really what we wanted to set out to dramatize was not to excuse in any way, shape or form the behavior that he did that, you know, resulted in tragedy, but also just to sort of, you know, show that. And it really asks the question is. Is someone the worst actions that they've. They've taken the worst moments of their lives.

Mike Pesca (23:28)

Right. And so I'll just say that Mandy is. Mandy Matney. She's the reporter character. She's literally portrayed by the great Britney Snow, who's also in the Beast in Me and God, she's a very good actress. And yeah, so Mandy Matney, that's who The Mandy references. Now, you just mentioned a couple of things. One, that he's a sweet kid, except when he's drinking. And you also talked about the influences that people have family has on future generations. So then there's the choice of how to portray Alex. Substance abuse, his pill addiction. And on the one hand, you don't want to. Every time he does something nefarious, which is a lot. Boom. Cut to him taking the pills. But, you know, he was taking the pills. And they do. There is a lot of explanatory power, but not excusatory. Not a word, but not an excuse. So how do you weave that? How do you show that he is enthralled to this addiction, but also that he's not to be too simplistic, but a bad guy, or at least someone who's responsible for his actions and his actions cause a lot of pain and hurt.

Michael D. Fuller (24:41)

I mean, I think. Yeah, and I think, like, if you can classify anyone in this, it's, you know, there's. Again, he's a human being. And so I think that's one of the things that we really wanted to explore. And what does his humanity look like and how much of it is there? And, you know, leave it to the audience to. To. To examine those things for themselves. But I think in terms of the addiction, you know, it's. It's, you know, as a storyteller and storytellers, you don't want to be addicted to the addiction of it all because to your point, it's easy to then cut to more this and cut to more this. And I think it was really, you know, wanting to, again, based on our. Our extensive research and, and that we did in the process. But is then how do we dramatize this with showing, okay, there. There was a level of things that he was seized by. I mean, you know, in doing in a lot of what we learned, you know, he was first prescribed real. Alex was first prescribed painkillers back in, you know, when what we now know was the onset of the opioid epidemic. And so there's a measure of that that is, you know, like, was external from him. But then there were times he kept going. He couldn't. There was a level of self control that he lacked. And as someone, you know, who's the. Who's an adult who's grown, it's like, okay, where does your own personal responsibility end and where does addiction begin? And that, you know, like, that's certainly not to. To damn anyone with. Who struggles with addiction, which is obviously an incredibly Real thing, which I know every probably family listening, every person listening to this has either been touched by directly or indirectly, you know, and so I think it's really a matter of, like, okay, how do we show that this was a layer that was fueling him without judging him for it, without also overdoing it, because, you know, and then also showing within that the. The deceit that is just, like, to me, it's more about the deceit that we dramatize of. He thought. Maggie thought they had come to these terms of this deal that they could manage together, and that he had just gone above and beyond that. So it's ultimately like, you know, it seemed as though, like, I think what ultimately the addiction was wasn't about pills. It wasn't about, you know, that. That may have been the specific substance, but it was just about, like, you know, getting away with stuff, like trying to. Trying to one up the system, trying to one up the. The dynamic, the moment, like, what else can I get out of this? I think was ultimately what the addiction was, and I think that was ultimately what brought the. The house of cards down on it.

Mike Pesca (26:59)

Yeah. And from my analysis, it's a lot about being the son of a really powerful guy who still, even when Alec Murdoch is in his 40s or early 50s, his dad, played by Gerald McCraney, is still holding sway and. And dictating his actions and taking away his agency. That's definitely made clear to me in your. In your show.

Michael D. Fuller (27:22)

Yeah. No, I mean, first of all, you know, all hail Gerald McCraney, who's just terrific in. In all the ways and embodies, you know, this. This patriarch and this lion of the low country.

Mike Pesca (27:35)

He's sort of a major dad, if you will.

Michael D. Fuller (27:38)

Yeah, he. He is.

Mike Pesca (27:40)

He's.

Michael D. Fuller (27:40)

You could call him a dad who's a major. Yeah, a Simon. Or a Simon, if you were to take it even further. But. But. No, but, you know, I think you're right. I think there's. And it's something that you see. I mean, you know, I think any type of family that has a legacy wherever they are. But, you know, I'm born and raised in South Carolina and grew up around a lot of families where there's a powerful patriarchy or there's its own sense of legacy or whatever, but there's. It's almost like there's an infantilization that occurs for everyone when there's a patriarch that is that powerful and that gravitational.

Mike Pesca (28:15)

Yeah, yeah. When adult men still have nicknames like Buster or Junior or, you know, Very infantilized nicknames.

Michael D. Fuller (28:23)

Yeah. When they, when adult men still refer to their, their fathers as daddy.

Mike Pesca (28:26)

Yeah.

Michael D. Fuller (28:27)

I think like.

Mike Pesca (28:28)

Right. Or a 50 year old is called. Oh, you're a little Bill.

Michael D. Fuller (28:32)

Yeah, exactly. It's just, there's the, there's a, and I think that's, that's certainly absolutely a dynamic at play where it was kind of just like, you know, there's a little bit of, of Peter Pan to Alec in the Neverland is Hampton County.

Mike Pesca (28:44)

Yeah. So being a South Carolinian, I don't know. Were others in the writing room? Were there other South Carolinians there?

Michael D. Fuller (28:52)

No. You know, we had, we had a very lean writer. We had a terrific writing team. But I felt like I, between Mandy Matney being a resource and she's a reporter, she's not from South Carolina, but she's based there and that's how she was covering the story, the boat crash stories that unfolded and then just, you know, was very, very important component in all of this. But it felt like I needed to build out the writers room with other perspectives. It felt like I kind of between myself and then Mandy's research and all the other things, like had the South Carolina side of the street covered. So I needed some, some other types of other, other players on the team, as it were. But yeah, and I think it was, you know, I certainly, you know, I don't even know all the ways that having that background was. But it was certainly one of the primary things that drew me to the story.

Mike Pesca (29:37)

And we'll be back with more of Michael D. Fuller in a moment. When you give to a nonprofit, how do you measure success? You hear a lot of things like, oh, low overhead costs or the efficiency of fundraising as defined by how much money actually doesn't go to administration. All right, let's talk about GiveWell. This episode sponsor focuses on the actual impact on people's lives. They've spent more than 70,000 hours on research to help donors fund highly cost effective programs that save or improve lives the most per dollar. By putting money in on the front end and knowing how things best work. That's how things work best. GiveWell has spent 18 years researching global health poverty alleviation and the only direct funds to the highest impact opportunities. 150,000 donors have already trusted GiveWell to direct more than two and a half billion dollars. Rigorous evidence, which is the name of the game, suggests that these donations will save 300,000 lives. Two lives per donor. You can be one such donor and you can find all their research and recommendations on their site for free. If this is your first gift through GiveWell, you can have your donation matched up to $100 before the end of the year or or as long as matching funds last. To claim your match, go to givewell.org and pick podcast and enter the gist. There are a few to choose from. Please enter the gist at checkout. Make sure they know that you heard about GiveWell from the Gist to get your donation matched again, givewell.org code the Gist to find out more. And to make a tax deductible donation Today, go to givewell.org and pick podcast and enter the gist at checkout. Make sure they know that you heard about GiveWell from the gist. Again, that's givewell.org to donate or find out more. For everyone who solves crime from their couch, knows more about forensics than their own job, and has trust issues with small town sheriffs, Amazon Music's millions of podcast episodes are calling. Just download the Amazon Music app and start listening to your favorite true crime podcasts ad free included with Prime. We're back with Michael D. Fuller, who is the showrunner of the new Murdoch series on Hulu and we must ask the question, why do you need to tell the story? Why are you compelled? And I understand the big questions. Hulu comes calling, they give you a big budget, you have an audience built in and you get to work with. I'll list some of the cast already. Patricia Arquette, Jason Clark, the two leads. Gerald McCraney's in it. J. Smith Cameron is in it. She's from Succession. She's awesome. You worked with her in the past. But given all that, it's exciting. But what do you want to say beyond just this story? What do you want to say about society or about family dynamics or about how we judge others or about how we live or about how we interact? What were the things that for you, you used these resources, this well resourced star studded cast as a vehicle to tell what kind of story?

Michael D. Fuller (32:59)

Yeah, you know, that's a great question and I think the, for me it's really about. Okay, what's the, you know, there have been terrific documentaries in general in the true crime space and then, and then specifically that have obviously covered this. I think for us it was, it was really having the opportunity to tell the human and the emotional component of this in a way that goes beyond just a simple retelling of, you know, here's, here's the crime, here's the victim, here's the perpetrator. But what was the, you know, what was the space between these individuals? Like, what was it like, you know, at the kitchen table? What was it like when they would, you know, run into people who had been victimized by them at the grocery store or, you know, like, what does that, what does that feel like in the moment as opposed to someone just simply recounting it or, or, and also, you know, like getting to know them. You know, when you're doing a true crime adaptation, the crimes are baked in. Those things are going to happen and they're going to, you know, we're going to get to those at some point in the story, but it's, it's. How can we get to know these people not just shackled to that prism of, of the crimes themselves? And, you know, and then I think it really is, it's, it's, you know, what we obviously don't know and will never truly know, but to our best understanding. You know, what did it feel like for Maggie and Paul to be down at the kennels on June 7, you know, 2021? Like, what was, what did it, what did it look and feel like? That's something that goes beyond, you know, I think other, other versions of, of any true crime stories that I think, you know, the ones that are done best are done with a sensitivity to everyone involved and that is, you know, includes the, the perpetrators themselves of some of these things. And I think, you know, so I think it's, you know, there's, obviously there's, there's themes of legacy and power. And I think, you know, one of the things that's just an undercurrent, hopefully, that, that that comes through is, you know, that much power and privilege sort of unchecked over generations, it's going to metastasize, it's going to rupture. It's always going to be trying to find the edge. And unfortunately, you know, they found it that the night of the boat crash, which is really the inciting incident of this, this story. But, you know, I think that's all, that's all an undercurrent and that's all there. But I think ultimately it was okay. What, what can we understand about these. Because, you know, in so many ways, and maybe being from South Carolina even more so. But hopefully for anyone watching anywhere, it's, you know, we all have, we all have families and we all have people in our families who are favored, we feel are favored in some ways, and we all have people in our families who, you know, mess up and make mistakes and sometimes bad ones. And I think it's like, where. To me, it was. Where's the line of how much you can relate to this family and these dynamics and until you can't, you know, And I think that's. And I think that's a really interesting thing about them in general in terms of the real saga and hopefully something we were able to dramatize in the show.

Mike Pesca (35:58)

So you have an important choice about how to present the murder. And since so many people know the stories, you can't really veer from what is known or what was presented at trial, who got shot first, even where they were shot. But your directorial choices. Do you show Alec committing the murders right off the bat? And you don't. There is a muzzle of a gun. I don't know if there. I don't know if you're playing with ambiguity, but tell me about that. Why did you leave it? At least if someone just came to this as a tabula rasa, why'd you leave it as a blank slate? Did. Do the demands of storytelling and drama demand that you not show right away who did it? Tell me about the choice there.

Michael D. Fuller (36:38)

Yeah, and so, you know, for. For anyone who's. Who's watching the show and may not or will listen to this and may not have gotten to the end yet, we revisit that moment and we revisit the murders when we get to the finale, and pretty late in the finale, and without giving too much away, you'll see things that you had not seen for anybody who may be watching. But the choice in episode six, in terms of the murders themselves, it was, I think, first and foremost, you want to approach any of it, but especially when it comes to these moments. I mean, we had. It was foundational for me when I came to it. I, you know, made sure it was a fundamental value in terms of the writers room and then in production, that on the day of, when we're shooting those things, we shot it over the course of two really long and arduous nights, is making sure we take a moment to know, okay, this is. We're not just, you know, depicting something fictional here that we've made some choices on. There's a lot of technical that you've got to do, but taking a moment before we shoot it for the entire cast, for the entire crew to say, these were real people, these are real human beings, and we are depicting the last moments of their lives. And so there's that. And then I think, in terms of, you know, to your. Your The. The specificity of your question in terms of, like, choosing what we show and what we don't show is, you know, the murders themselves for people who are following. Because people were following this story before the murders happened. I mean, the murders were. That was what exploded it on the national scene. But there were a lot of people who were really invested in following this as it was unfolding long before the murders, after the boat crash. So the murders themselves were just a total shock. I mean, I think it felt like it very much. As someone who was aware of this story unfolding myself, it was a complete shock that that occurred. And so it's okay, let's live in the reality of that, which is the shock both for Maggie and Paul being down there, but also for the audience of, wait, what just happened? How did it just happen? And then, you know that you really. There's a choice you make. Is it, do you see Alec just doing it in the moment, or do you delay that and you delay. And I think the calculation that we made and the thing that made sense was leave it ambiguous and leave it feeling shocking so that it's not easy to pin down. And then the audience themselves is trying to discern, well, what do I think about his behavior? What do I. Which was very much the reality of the story itself for people who were. Who knew the family, who were following it directly, you know, directly involved in it. And I think, you know, by withholding, hopefully what we do is we allow the audience to then wonder themselves, like, well, could it have been him? Or I know for sure it had to be him. And then I think it really, you know, and then you get to see what we did was we really passed the baton to Buster, the oldest son, the story surviving son as a POV character, because that's sort of his perspective on things is he just gets this call that this occurred. He doesn't know who did it. And he's certainly not going to be thinking, you know, that his father could have done this. And so we. We get to live in that perspective. And it's like, let's live in Alex version of things until that version unravels. And then it unravels spectacularly, obviously, over the course of. Of, you know, the ensuing roadside shooting and the charges and what was discovered on Paul's phone, et cetera, et cetera, evidence. And it just becomes, you know, undeniable. But I think, you know, it was really about choosing to live in that ambiguity for the audience and not just, you know, put a pin in it. Yeah, right. Out the.

Mike Pesca (40:15)

I have, I have. I have a couple stray thoughts. One is that in as you depict the murders, you use that Hitchcockian technique of the misdirect a second before the actual murder. So Hitchcock will set a scene in a belfry and then there'll be pigeons and that'll shock the audience. And then there is the exhale of breath. And then after the exhale, that is when the actual violence occurs. And you do that. Exactly. Which is to say that this is still, let's call it entertainment, or people are watching to have a story presented to them in a way that comports with the beats of how they understand storytelling. It even goes back to how the newspaper story was written and where the lead is and how you. Or how the original podcast that this was based on is constructed. You still want to make it compelling. And I don't think beyond. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think if you do it differently, you're not really doing your job. The podcast is not doing their job. Long winded way to say that. What I believe is that there is no doubt, there is even beyond the way, beyond a reasonable doubt that Alec Murdoch was the killer. But I have questions about if the ideas, if the reasons presented at trial were really the put a bow on it reasons. And I think you might too, from watching this. I just think. And tell me what you think. That motivations are messy and yeah, he was involved in all these financial scams and had this addiction and was who he was. But to say, as I suppose a prosecutor must say, and he did it for these reasons, now you. The jury can convict and you don't have to wonder. That's not really how most humans operate, I don't think. What do you think?

Michael D. Fuller (42:08)

I completely agree. I think it's very, you know, and I think the thing we wanted to do was present the situation and the dynamics that were at play there. And then obviously, like, we're drawing on, you know, the actual court transcripts and trial. Trial transcripts that were invaluable research tools and you know, like sort of their attempts, as you said, their prosecutorial attempts to summarize, to clarify and. And make sense of it. But I think, you know, I think it's one of those things where it's a question that gets asked a lot is. And I think you're. The way you've asked it is the most unique. And my favorite is definitely Long winded, right? No, no, but it is. But it's not. Not. Why did he do why do you think he did it? Do you think why he did it, why we understand he did it, is the totality of why he could have done it. And I agree with you. I don't think. I don't think we can ever really feel fully know that unless you've been in his mind. And in that situation, I think that's just. There's an unknowable quality to what all he was processing, what he was dealing with. I think there's certainly understandable things. You know, I think the thing that, you know, we talked about a lot in the room that I internalized that then I talked to Jason Clark a lot as we're, you know, working through the story, and his understanding of Alec and the, you know, the character and as he's bringing it to life is like, there are these factors that were at play where it's okay, you understand that the walls are closing in on him. You understand that all of these chickens, no pun intended, for people who know the story because of the vital role a chicken plays in all this. But the chickens were coming home to roost in a way that he had never had to face before. But I think that. So that all makes a certain amount of sense of, I have to do something. I think it's then what we know, and he's been convicted of doing that he did, where it's okay. I was with you up to. I have to do something. It was. It was then the actions you took. And I think to your point, it is so much more messy and complex than I think we can ever really fully, you know, comprehend or understand. And I think that's one of the things, hopefully, that the show can do, is help an audience think about that very question. And I think that goes for all of the. All of the characters in the show. But I think, you know, especially as it relates to the. That the. The murders that are at, you know, the heart of.

Mike Pesca (44:21)

Of this saga, right? And it's all legitimate because different storytellers have different motivations, and a podcaster's motivation might be to hook you to the next episode and stand out amidst the other hundred thousand true crime podcasts and hundreds of Murdoch podcasts. A prosecutor has his or her own motivation, which is to take away ambiguity or ambivalence in the mind of a juror. The prosecutor ultimately wants to put someone in jail, and the mechanism that they get there is to erase ambiguity. But the storyteller, or your kind of storyteller, and what Jason Clark is doing is actually to introduce A little bit of ambiguity or if you have these questions, you've done your job in an opposite way of the prosecutor would have not done his job if he left the jury with ambiguity.

Michael D. Fuller (45:10)

Yeah, absolutely. No, I mean I think that's. And I think, you know, I'll just use an example from the. That's you know, for people who follow the story and we dramatize it and then, you know, speak to it during the course of the trial episode. But is that after the murders, you know, and this is from research, so I'm citing actual events here that then we show in the show almost to the. To the letter is that Alec was speaking with Marion, his sister in law, Maggie's sister. And she said, you know, dude. And he said something that then became something that she was spoken to, you know, she was asked about when she was on the witness stand. And something that became, oh, that's you know, like that just shows that seems like it's some sort of smoking gun. And it is an odd thing to say. What he said was, I think whoever did this was thinking about it for a very long time. And people took that as. And they could be, by the way, this just goes to your point, they could be absolutely right that that was just him telling on himself that he just in that moment revealed some like he slipped up and was like, yeah, I was really, you know, whoever did it, I me once you realize that I could not get this off my mind. I mean maybe that was what was happening. My interpretation of it after pouring over it for, you know, that was my initial interpretation of it. But then I realized how invested he was from the moment the cops arrived at the murder scene. The first thing he says is my son was in a boat crash some years ago. And what it certainly seems as though he was doing from a very, you know, a whole bunch of different things was trying to play up this revenge for the boat crash motive as the reasons for the murders. Well, the murders happened a long time ago. And you know, if your angle is and if you've trained yourself that this is the story, then what he's saying there through that prism, it makes a certain kind of sense of. I'm saying I think whoever did this was thinking about it for a long time. I eat, you know, going back to the boat crash which has been my. And so I all that to say I think it's more complex than people really. And I'm not, I'm not saying that's the definitive answer on it, but that in of itself is like well, maybe he wasn't just telling on himself there. Maybe he was telling on himself in a different way, which was he was trying so to cover up this with his story and then he just stepped in it because he phrased it, you know, so poorly and it just ended up reflecting more on him. But, you know, maybe it was telling on himself in a way that was a little bit more understandable and on a human, you know, on a logical level. So anyway, all that to say, yes, I agree with you that it's messy and complex and it's not as clear cut as, oh, this, this and this. There's all kinds of things swirling around in that vortex of, of motivation.

Mike Pesca (47:48)

Michael D. Fuller is the showrunner and a son of South Carolina, so I assume he likes the more vinegary of the barbecue sauces. He is the showrunner of Murdoch Death in the Family all eight episodes out on Hulu now. Michael, thank you.

Michael D. Fuller (48:04)

Michael. Do a Michael, good, good, good talking to you man. Always wonderful questions. Thank you man.

Mike Pesca (48:13)

The Gist is produced by Corey Wara. We had help today from Leah Yan. Kathleen Sykes helps me with the Gist list. Jeff Craig does so much with the video and the social and the visual. He's a master of the visual in this a primarily audio form. Michel Pesca also works with the visuals, but is mostly the visionary improve Do Peru. And thanks for listening.

Libsyn Ads Advertiser (48:43)

Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn Ads, go to libsynads. Com that's L I B s y n ads.com today.